Please take the time to study those threads carefully. And then, for a perspective on how other forums and internet communication services run theirs, read the MSN Code of Conduct, and Aol.com Terms of Service from which a large number of posters here are loging.

My aim is not to duplicate those examples, but to show you just how censored and restricted these services have become, because of past litigation.

I am using MIT's server and software services to run this forum. I have a responsibility toward MIT, and toward all the posters on this forum. My decisions aren't impulsive and taken lightly. I have a great deal of experience on the internet, and have been at it longer than the majority of you.

I encourage free speech, heated debates and discussions, but not anarchy and illegal activities. As the administrator I am responsible to decide which is which. So far, those of you who have been the most critical do not have experience with administrating a busy forum such as this, as far as I know.

I started this thread for informational purposes, and I'm encouraging free discussions on it. But I will not take part in the debates.

Answers

Oh please, tell us what kind of "illegal" activity you're talking
about, and what kind of anarchy. And don't you dare give us that, "I
started this thread for informational purposes, and I'm encouraging
free discussions on it. But I will not take part in the debates."
bullshit. You can't start a post like this and back out.

So you have been reduced to defending your decision to protect your
buddies at our expense on the grounds that some other, unrelated
behavior is illegal? This isn't even a *rational* defense, it's
merely whatever crosses the mind of a stubborn child.

Can't you understand that the very existence of this forum stems
ENTIRELY from your promise not to censor? You weren't cheered on for
your compassion or for your blatant cronyism, you know. You were
cheered because, in the very *worst* case, we could now be as mean as
we wanted to anyone and everyone without fear. This doesn't mean we
WANT to be mean, or that we act that way very often. It means we CAN,
because the forum is UNCENSORED. Until now.

As a clue, LOOK who's backing you up here -- none other than one of
the prime bullies from the old days. Aren't you proud of that?

"So you have been reduced to defending your decision to protect your
buddies"

I may and do, like and respect OTFR but we aren't what you would call
buddies,one e-mail does not constitute such.I don't even know a true
identity and have never really been concerned with finding out.

We all know what happens when we ASSUME things and it seems someone as
keen as yourself would be careful about making such critical mistakes
in logic and judgement.You may even open yourself up to criticism for
an error you believed to be correct,not what you knew to be absolutely
fact.You might even then believe that there was potential harm,but then
again,you are the one who assumed.

Logic and critical thinking are fine things to possess but in the long
run a good dose of common sense will get you alot further.

I was actually referring to Diane Squire, not you. And I'm basing the
"buddies" on what Chris said about Diane's request, and on
essentially identical behavior when faced with offensive posts. Chris
disabling a link to Diane's site reminds me a lot of Ford pardoning
Nixon - a good ole boy network in action. There was absolutely no
reason to censor that post, and a LOT of good reason NOT to.
Apparently Chris worries that some of us might actually hold Diane
responsible for her actions. Can't have that!

And now Chris makes the indirect claim that it was *illegal* to be
insensitive to your feelings. And when challenged on this absurdity,
she runs away. Cap, we got problems here.

Can you be fair here now? You said 'old bullies', then you said you
were referring to Diane S. Is that bully or bullies? If bullies,
please disclose Who the other bullies are. Honest question, I'd like
to know.

As for the deletion of the Diane S link, I was Not aware this was
done, somehow must of missed it.

But, for those who wish to find it, hint, sometimes the answer is
right under our noses. no big mystery, I was NO fan of Diane's, nope
never was.

My understanding is she chose to have a closed forum, is this
correct? If so, then I take a little issue with the link being
deleted, in all fairness. Hows that for open-minded?

But I will not/ can not, berate OTFR, Flint, I feel OTFR has done the
best under the conditions. I do not understand the 'uproar'.

I am not so dumb that i dont get 'it', I just dont see it. What I
see happening here is an attempt to pull this board down, that hurts,
because I like this place.

I asked you on another thread about disclosing OTFR name, If it is
Chris, and you and us knew OTFR wished to remain annonymous, what was
the point, or is this a joke?

I've been intolerant of you lately, but I would like some answers, in
an honest attempt to 'understand'. Is it possible to get answers
from you or will you ignore me?

[Is OTFR supposed to conduct herself in such a way as never to elicit
such support, even accidentally?

This is simple guilt by association. Nothing better. Aren't you proud
of that?]

Well, rather than a reflexive knee-jerk response, let's look at this
a bit, OK? I called this a clue, not an indictment. Are you
seriously arguing that it is NOT a clue? I suppose you could take the
position that all forum contributors are identical, interchangeable
parts. But I think few would agree with you.

There seem to be three schools of thought here. I feel (along with
some others like Ken) that Chris' behavior is frightening. The
censorship is arbitrary and personal, and the defense of that
censorship is childish, stubborn and thought-free. This bodes ill for
the forum itself.

A second view (such as yours, and that of FutureShock and perhaps the
majority of others) is that these errors aren't terminal, and haven't
done any material damage yet, and maybe Chris will learn better given
time to reflect rather than react. And besides, another forum split
is probably a cure worse than the disease. And I can only hope you're
right.

The third view is that censorship is just fine provided "the enemy"
objects, as exemplified by our old friend 'a' here. If it were
possible for you to search this and the prior forum for every post
'a' ever made, I doubt you could find more than one or two that
didn't attack, mock or belittle some optimist in some way. Your
implication that this track record is meaningless falls rather flat.

Finally, guilt by association is disallowed in court as a matter of
principle, and so it should be. As a matter of *practice*, it is an
indespensible law enforcement tool. Where there is smoke there isn't
*sure* to be a fire, but that's the first place to look, and it works
almost every time. As a clue, it's extremely informative. As proof,
it's inadequate.

The old forum died for the same sins Chris is just starting to
commit. And the old censors also started slowly, and they also did so
with the best of intentions, and they also could not admit error. Are
we not supposed to learn from the mistakes of those who turned the
old forum into history? Your defense of this behavior baffles me.

I wish I could see evidence of "Chris" learning. (By the way, is
this the same person who wanted to improve my behavior? Egads!) I
found the defense much as you did... reminiscent of the old sysops.
To the extent we drift away from EZB, there may be few problems. If
we continue to have cross-posting, however, we may see an unpleasant
pattern emerge.

Oh, you'll have to forgive Brian, Flint. He sometimes gets so
distracted posting on this forum while simultaneously changing water
to wine, healing lepers and raising the dead. (chuckle)

In regards to the"urgent request" post:In my somewhat simplistic way of
looking at things that post was not my post it was Sadies'post,a post
for a prayer (for a little girl who may still die)"FOR THOSE
INCLINED"(read thread).

Should that post have denigrated into a cat call in regards to my
intentions or character? Logically, would that have defeated the
purpose of the post?Would it be different if it were your daughter and
someone outright accused you of lying about it? thus taking the
emphasis away from what was direly needed,be it BLOOD OR PRAYER?

In as much as we ballyhoo about free speech and rights,does common
human decency hold as high an esteem? Do you not look at todays society
and wonder where our ethos has dissapeared to? Is there no such thing
as doing the good and right thing? Or is it ALL boiled down into doing
the logical thing?

While OTFR's actions may be called censorship it could also be
described as having a soul or a conscience,it seems you would have us
demonize and chastise those actions,in my simplistic way of looking at
things I am perplexed by your outrage.

NEXT TOPIC;re Diane

If someone from this board were to go to D's "house" and pull whatever
kind of vandalism is possible via this medium and it was later
determined that the culprit came from this "house" with directions to
that address would it reflect positively or negatively on this "house"
as a whole?

Would it bother you if you knew you could have stopped it? or would you
have condoned it?

"some of us might actually hold Diane responsible for her actions"

Those are your words Flint,so now you have gone even further than
censorship,NOW YOU HAVE BECOME THE JUDGE.

There is a time to let the past go,as the polly saying states,get a
life.The way you are acting its as if Diane is a nazi war criminal and
it's your job to see to it that she is hunted down and tried and that
OTFR just allowed her to slip through your fingers.

Chew on that for awhile,Iv'e got a couple of things to do real quick
and I'll be right back with ya.

No, I didn't mean to ignore you. Your post snuck in while I was
replying to someone else. I'll do my best to respond here.

[Can you be fair here now? You said 'old bullies', then you said you
were referring to Diane S. Is that bully or bullies? If bullies,
please disclose Who the other bullies are. Honest question, I'd like
to know.]

I referred both an old bully and buddies. I regard 'a' as one of the
old bullies. Whether Diane is a buddy of Chris I can't say, but I see
no other reason to defend her. Diane was a prime cause of death of
the old TB2K, and at the very least a willing fellow traveller with
the EZboard policies. I've discussed this in other posts, though.
[As for the deletion of the Diane S link, I was Not aware this was
done, somehow must of missed it.]

This was the first post in the Psst! Look Quick! thread. Several
other people attempted to recreate this link, but it was killed every
time.

[But, for those who wish to find it, hint, sometimes the answer is
right under our noses. no big mystery, I was NO fan of Diane's, nope
never was.]

I know there are other ways to get there [grin]. Indeed, it's so
simple as to make Chris' action doubly baffling. Why even bother with
the effort at censorship in a case like that, except to make the
point that she can and will censor posts arbitrarily?

[My understanding is she chose to have a closed forum, is this
correct? If so, then I take a little issue with the link being
deleted, in all fairness. Hows that for open-minded?]

I don't know, I've never gone to Diane's site. I can certainly
understand people resenting what Diane did to them and to the old
forum, and resenting even more that Chris has decided that Diane
should not be answerable for her actions and should be protected.
Personally, I resent the assumption that I'm a troll or a vandal, and
can't be expected to behave myself.

[But I will not/ can not, berate OTFR, Flint, I feel OTFR has done
the best under the conditions. I do not understand the 'uproar'.]

Maybe you didn't live through the decline and fall of the old forum.
It started slowly, it was done with good intentions. It got worse and
worse. People Diane worked hard to "disappear" worked even harder NOT
to be disappeared, and it snowballed. And at no time did Diane ever
voice any suspicion that her *own actions* had caused her
difficulties. Maybe she was too busy calling herself a y2k moderate
out of one side of her mouth, and suggesting that the real moderates
leave out of the other, to notice her responsibility.

So the real energy source of this 'uproar' is the action to use
censorship in an attempt to let Diane live in peace, let's let
bygones be bygones. There's a contingent here who believe actions
should have consequences. And indeed, the censorship was motivated
*because* of that leftover resentment. I suspect (I don't know) that
someone was doing unto Diane as Diane had done unto them. And Chris
was faced with a choice of justice or niceness to Diane (and NOT us),
and chose Diane. Bad move.

[I am not so dumb that i dont get 'it', I just dont see it. What I
see happening here is an attempt to pull this board down, that hurts,
because I like this place.]

On the contrary. The kind of thing that's been started here is what
ended up killing the old board. As I said on another post, the issue
is when is the best time to treat the cancer? We KNOW from bitter
experience what happens if we pretend it's not happening until too
late. I like this place too, obviously.

[I asked you on another thread about disclosing OTFR name, If it is
Chris, and you and us knew OTFR wished to remain annonymous, what was
the point, or is this a joke?]

To my knowledge, I have no more clues than you do. If it's not Chris,
then I stand exposed as a fool. I believe it's Chris based on certain
viewpoints, certain turns of phrase, certain characteristic
misspellings, and other indirect clues. But if I'm right, I don't
mind. I wanted an uncensored forum, and OTFR wanted anonymity. We had
a deal, as I see it. And *I'm* not the one who broke it.

[I've been intolerant of you lately, but I would like some answers,
in an honest attempt to 'understand'. Is it possible to get answers
from you or will you ignore me?]

I try to respond. Sometimes I feel like a one-armed paper hanger
because I do my best to respond at length and in detail, and there
are times when I have a LOT of responding to do. So there are
sometimes delays. But my email address is always real, so you're
welcome (invited, even) to talk to me offline. Things have been
hectic here today, on top of fulltime geekwork and an increasingly
lonely wife. Man, where or where does all the time go?

Man, give someone the benefit of the doubt, or am I the only 'one'
who would be lets say be 'naive' enough to believe it? I'm glad I
did believe it, because I would hate to think that I for one would be
critically challenged enough to believe somebody would ask for prayer
on a situation that horrible.

Are we gonna let it go? I realize there are other issues as well,
but even you agreed that the D thread could be obtained (grin).

I for one, although never having like Diane, would not do anything
intentional to disrupt her. Why waste energy.?

And again I ask, why not challenge with email as you were requested
to do, pertaining only to OTFR policies which you do not agree with?

That way he/she is not bogged down with much emails and this board
can still be debated regarding censorship without dragging OTFR into
it?

"Finally, guilt by association is disallowed in court as a matter of
principle, and so it should be. As a matter of
*practice*, it is an indespensible law enforcement tool. Where
there is smoke there isn't *sure* to be a fire, but
that's the first place to look, and it works almost every time.
As a clue, it's extremely informative. As proof, it's
inadequate."

So in other words Flint, you're saying that you're speculating and
making broad assumptions regarding OTFR's motives. That's how I
interpret this.

consumer, I remember Flint having a long argument with Chris at the
beginning of this forum over Diane Squire. I looked for the thread but
couldn't find it. If I remember well, Chris seemed to be defending
Diane, but not the other sysops. Maybe that's why he thinks OTFR is
Chris.

Seems to me like a tempest in a teacup. It's also ironic that Flint
acuses OTFR of "same sins as EZB" and is not being deleted for it.

Flint, if I read you right, you are saying that you do not like the
direction the forum is going, and you do not trust that OTFR will
learn or change. So, what exactly, besides carping, do you hope to
accomplish at this point? What is your goal in pursuing this? Some
sort of apology? A promise OTFR won't get on your bad side? Veto power
over OTFR's decisions? What do you want?

By writing off OTFR, you seem to be burning your bridges to this
forum. Are you expecting a new one to spring up under your hand?
Besides being reactionary and getting the satisfaction of venting at
OTFR, where do you think you are going with this? Anywhere
constructive?

Ken, as for that turning water into wine and healing lepers crack -
Hey! I resemble that remark!

On the contrary. The kind of thing that's been
started here is what ended up killing the old board. As I said on
another post, the issue is when is the best time to treat the
cancer?

Now you are diagnosing diseases. You are taking this too seriously. We
had this discussion last year. Was it Oct or Nov. Probably earlier. I
was in the Northwest in Oct and I left the board [the theory was
forever] for travel in Nov. But it was sometime.

The point was that you not only want to make a point, but you want
everyone to accept the point. You said that you would think it over.
Decker is another species. That is not an insult. That is how we think
of economists.

We have one link where someone was asking for prayer for a child
critically injured in an accident. Someone posts questioning said
accident - and was told they could start a separate thread.

We have another post linking to another site of a person who has
requested not to be associated with this board any longer and has
dropped off of the Y2K charts. That post seemed like a troll post to
me, but that is just my opinion, I may be wrong.

I probably missed other deletions, I don't know about them. I have
checked the deleted thread to try to find them.

I never really thought this site would be uncensored, no matter what
it is called. Common sense, IMHO, dictates that is impossible. I
thought this site was created so that those barred from the EZBoard
would have a voice.

OTFR, whoever you are, thank you for creating this site. I had
lurked on the original TB2K, and posted a few times, since August
1999. It seems to me that the best of the original forum have come
here.

Your viewpoint strikes me as stunningly feminine. As a geek, of
course I have no empathy, and certainly can't understand women. But
I'll do my best, such as it is...

["where does all the time go"? In all fairness, it appears alot of it
has been spent lately trying to 'not let go' of this issue.]

Yeah, good point. I remember reading somewhere that if a man ever
finds himself winning an argument with a woman, he should stop and
apologize immediately! Otherwise, the argument will last forever,
because a woman cannot admit being wrong. Diane could not, and OTFR
cannot either. Yet another clue about identity there.

[So let me ask you this: do you wish to have your own forum? Do you
REALLY want to find out how tough it is to moderate/administrate a
forum uncensored?]

Not really. I can appreciate that it's a lot of work. And it's not so
much that I mind the time, as the schedule. I put in a lot of time on
this forum, but I get to choose when. And for about a year, I was one
of the moderators on a technical forum, where posts were all read by
the moderators FIRST, and only posted if they met strict technical
requirements. And that took a lot of time too. And people were always
complaining about 2-10 hours delays between submitting a post and
seeing it show up. But hey, we gotta sleep sometime.

[I say and can / do ask....why not call a 'truce'?]

Doesn't that require that BOTH sides agree? The "agreement" as it now
stands is that Chris gets to do as she damn pleases, and WE get to
bend over. And she shows no movement whatsoever. I believe you are
addressing the wrong party with your request.

[Lets give OTFR a 'break', doing the best she/he can. Dealing with US
is hard enough, IMHO.]

consumer, you really confuse me here. This is basic blame-the-victim.
*I* didn't censor anyone. *I* didn't claim it was illegal to be
insensitive. Again, you are addressing the wrong party.

[If you wish to 'debate' censorship, by all means, lets do so. But
can we leave OTFR out of it? Yes he/she has been attempting to
explain self...do you blame him/her?]

In a word, YES! How do you propose we organize this debate on
censorship so as to leave the censor out of it? Do you picture us as
kind of like high school class officers deciding school policy, but
let's leave the principal out of it? I'm not here to "debate the
merits" of censorship, I'm here to *bitch like hell* about it.

[Would you not do the same? I sure the heck would. All that was asked
for was compassion. that was all it took to wind up here?]

No, if I screwed up I'd admit it, correct it if I could, and try not
to do it again. Hell, I even publicly apologized to *Paul Milne* when
I accused him unjustly. (and Boy Howdy, did he and 'a' try to beat me
over the head with that apology for many months. Neither one ever
understood what character means)

[With all the threads on abortion, religion, etc, with LOTS of free
speech going on, what is up with this? I am proud of capn to even
post a prayer request.

I really don't know what's up. I'm proud of capn as well, and I think
retard was a moron and a jerk. But so what? The very essence of an
uncensored forum is a nasty tradeoff -- in exchange for being able to
say whatever we want, we must perforce be exposed to stuff we detest
and abhor. This is the *price* of free speech. And OTFR promised to
grit her teeth and pay that price right along with the rest of us.
Until it got tough and she wimped out!

[Are we gonna let it go? I realize there are other issues as well,
but even you agreed that the D thread could be obtained (grin).]

This is kind like having someone steal your money *first*, and *then*
plead for amnesty.

[I for one, although never having like Diane, would not do anything
intentional to disrupt her. Why waste energy.?]

I wouldn't either. That's not the point, dammit. The decision whether
or not I disrupt Diane is MY decision and nobody else's. And Chris
tried to take that decision away from me. I wonder how *she'd* like
it if *I* decided what she could know and what I felt I should keep
secret from her? For "compassionate" reasons, of course. *MY*
definition of compassionate, you understand. Hers doesn't count! See
the problem here?

[And again I ask, why not challenge with email as you were requested
to do, pertaining only to OTFR policies which you do not agree with?]

Sigh. I spent 4 hours writing an email to her, even though discussion
of forum policy belongs on the forum if anything does. Her request to
take it offline is as close to an admission of error as she's come
yet. And in reply, she sent a single sentence calling me an asshole!
THIS is correspondence? I find it very hard to defend.

[That way he/she is not bogged down with much emails and this board
can still be debated regarding censorship without dragging OTFR into
it?]

Please, be sensible. OTFR *IS* censorship on this board. You might as
well try to ask your spouse about something without dragging your
spouse into it.

[Is this possible? Perhaps a better solution? I'm open..]

Well, I don't have the keys to this forum. Ultimately, we can suggest
solutions until we drop dead, but only ONE person can implement
them.

Well, Flint, we are outnumbered, but not outgunned... at least not
yet. I think we are encountering Yourdon Syndrome. "Yourdon is
nice, therefore, we should believe him." Apparently, some people are
more comfortable with others making decisions for them than you or
I. Well... where do we go from here?

Missed all the uproar -- been on vacation. Rather than try to figure
it all out, since it was deleted, all I can input is: I am against
censorship in ANY form -- for any reason.

We are not children here. We do not need a hall monitor. I thought
we were all free thinkers. Whatever retard said on the prayer
thread, couldn't possibly have been cause for deletion. Maybe retard
doesn't believe in gawd and finds prayer offensive? Sorry -- I missed
it so I can only guess.

As far a DJS -- huh? Again, we are not in high school. (well maybe
some :-)

Interesting happenings. Like I said, I am against ALL censorship. I
come here because it is uncensored. I enjoy everyones opinions. Not
really into, the majority rulez.

Time will tell I guess. No offense OTFR. Hopefully, this is a blip
on the screen, which apparantly I missed.

Since I said I would not take part in this debate, Flint scores a
manipulating point in draging me into it with this one.

"Sigh. I spent 4 hours writing an email to her, even though discussion
of forum policy belongs on the forum if
anything does. Her request to take it offline is as close to an
admission of error as she's come yet. And in reply,
she sent a single sentence calling me an asshole! THIS is
correspondence? I find it very hard to defend."

Since you made our email correspondance public with these remarks, I
might as well paste my whole reply email here. Just so everyone have
"all the hidden behind the scene facts", since you hate "secrets" so
much. I thought perhaps by going private and discussing one on one it
would give you a chance to save face as we'd iron out our differences
and you'd learn a thing or two about my position and vantage point.
But you stubornly play "blamed victim" and harball. So be it.

I've read your email once, and your post where you
call me "Chris" on the forum. My immediate reaction
would be to call you a pompous ignorant asshole with
no integrity, so I'll sit on your email a while
before
I reply.

=====
Old TB2K Forum Regular

Another "hidden fact" for Flint. My email to Capnfun was after I
warned Retard and everyone on his "Urgent" thread. Cap had emailed me
the address and phone numbers of the hospital, asking me to verify
it's validity and post an update myself. I replied to him not to post
such sensitive information. My warning to Retard was to prevent just
such a thing from happening, knowing Cap probably was too emotional
from what was happening to his friend's little girl and did not have
time to think over concequences.

Flint's acusations of me being hardheaded, unwilling to learn from my
mistakes, are irrational and deluded.

I tried to "let go" and let him vent and "win his argument" by stating
I would not take part in this debate. But I find out he's manipulating
this whole thread to his advantage. For what? Good question. I won't
give him the keys to this forum. Is that why he says I won't let him
win this argument? He's left with the choice to keep on bitching or
leaving. I guess that makes me hardeaded in his view.

I'm left with giving him that choice, bitch or leave. I keep the keys.

Thank you for taking the time to communicate your concerns about the moderating decisions of the forum. I appreciate that you have such passion and regard for the healthy functioning of the forum, as so do I, although we obviously disagree on what form that should take. At this moment, I'm feeling pretty reactive to your criticism and your posts on the forum calling me Chris. It would be best for us both that I reply to you at a later time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would seem much more respectful of a frequent contributer and valued member of this forum. The reply OTFR sent might as well have said, "If I write to you now I will call you a pompous ignorant asshole with no integrity...and that would be wrong. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

Eh? Chris is claiming that she isn't hardheaded on the grounds that
her response to my 20K-long email was TWO sentences rather than one,
and she actually called me a "pompous, ignorant asshole with no
integrity" rather than just simply an asshole?

Ken and Flint obviously see problems with this forum. Grave problems.
Problems which must be FIXED and SOON or else the Forum As We Know It
will be destroyed.

The rest of us don't see it. We think that everything is pretty much
okay, and if there are problems, they will get resolved without
everything crumbling to the ground.

Flint and Ken appear distressed that we are not concerned. They react
with anger (Who the HELL are YOU, etc.)and resort to name-
calling (an horse's ass like you)when their positions are
challenged. They "out" their opponents as "payback" for a supposedly
broken promise.

They feel that we are not able to think for ourselves, that we
are "sheeple" if you will. They alone, who have been in these forums
far longer than we, see the "big picture." The rest of us just don't
Get It.

Yes, folks. Flint and Ken are the new Doomers. And we are the
Pollies.

What *I* read in Old Regular's E-mail was "Right now, I'm coming out
of an emotional bag over this. If I spoke now on this issue, I would
call you.... I'd prefer to wait, let my emotions cool down, and
respond later." Old Regular probably realized how much work you
spent on your E-mail and thought a quick response of SOMETHING was
due.

I don't know how you live YOUR life, Flint, but when I'm
ticked off, I say NOTHING immediately. I tend to WAIT
, internally review what's taken place, and when I feel my review
is complete, I THEN feel I'm in a position to discuss the
matter. I don't try and HIDE my immediate feelings; I simply refrain
from vocalizing them. [The thought police would have a field day.]

Where did I (or Flint) see "grave" problems with the forum? We
criticized the behavior of the sysop. I asked a hypothetical
question about a new forum because I was disappointed by what I saw
in sysop's response to Flint's criticism. And I continue to feel the
sysop just doesn't "get it" about running an open forum.

You might want to try writing without quite so much hyperbole. The
forum is not neatly divided with Flint and me on one side of the
fence. And I really don't care if you are concerned or not. You
haven't made a cogent argument about this issue yet and you don't
have any credibility... at least me. Why would I care?

I do care what Flint thinks, or Jim Cooke, or Brian McLaughlin. Even
before they weighed in on the subject, they had earned a measure of
respect... at least with me.

As for name calling... give me a break. Your posts have been
sarcastic, rude and all in respects but the name itself... calling
Flint (or I) a horse's ass. And using someone's first name... one of
the more common one's in the western world and neutral in gender, is
not what I would call outing. (Exagerate, exagerate, exagerate... I
see a pattern here).

This is just an Internet forum full of anonymous posters. It could
disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't lose a moment thinking about it.
The handful of folks who I respect use real names and email
addresses. It is easy enough to stay in touch. The whole forum,
this year and last, was a tempest in a very tiny teapot.

"address and phone numbers of the hospital, asking me to verify it's
validity and post an update myself. I replied to him not to post such
sensitive information.

Why in the world would you think that is sensitive information? What
do you think is going to happen? Someone is going to fly to his
state, find the hospital, find the name of that little girl and what
room she's in, and pull the cord?

hmmm, (...@, ra, sifting, E. H. Porter) has shown his ignorance on a
number of occasions. Don't waste your time addressing him. The rest
of us know he's off-the-wall, so respectfully, I request you spend
your time on more productive matters.

Thank you, OTBFR, for your posting of your reply to Flint-even though
you did not want to do this.

While I never like name-calling, I understand you are emotionally
charged by this issue. Some people, and I know you must be one of
them, are very very sensitive to bad things happening to children. My
wife is one of these people. I am sure when you first read capnfun's
post you were mortified that this happened to a child-and then when
someone questioned its validity, some primal instinct to protect this
child came out-wether you are male or female does not matter.

Flint:

I do not think you should have been called a name, but i DO question
why you did not mention that OTBFR was going to reply to your e-mail
at a later date. Please post the qoute if you did mention that the
admin was going to respond. It reduces your credibility if you
neglected to mention what I feel is a very important part of the
reply to you.

As I understood the ground rules we would tolerate things we didn't
like in order to have the ability to say things that others wouldn't
like. Porno would be deleted, as would spam, though one slice of the
spam would remain so as to remain within the ground rules of allowing
free expression.

Deleting posts in order to protect our feelings does not fit the
rules as I understood them. And yes, that is how it started on TB2K,
slowly at first, then a little more, a bit here and there, and we all
know where that went.

Flint likened the problems to a deadly disease. That sounded
pretty "grave" to me.

We criticized the behavior of the sysop. I asked a hypothetical
question about a new forum because I was disappointed by what I saw
in sysop's response to Flint's criticism. And I continue to feel the
sysop just doesn't "get it" about running an open forum.

No problems there.

You might want to try writing without quite so much hyperbole.

I could try, but it's not nearly as much fun.

The forum is not neatly divided with Flint and me on one side of the
fence.

In terms of your behavior in the current situation, I would say it is.

And I really don't care if you are concerned or not.

Noted.

You haven't made a cogent argument about this issue yet

In your opnion.

As for name calling... give me a break. Your posts have been
sarcastic, rude and all in respects but the name itself... calling
Flint (or I) a horse's ass.

I'll grant you the sarcasm, but rude?? In what way?

And using someone's first name... one of the more common one's in the
western world and neutral in gender, is not what I would call outing.
(Exagerate, exagerate, exagerate... I see a pattern here).

LOL. Many people are known here by their first names, Ken, or haven't
you noticed that yet? I would think that someone who intentionally
uses an anonymous ID would not want any part of their name used. But
hey, rationalize it all you want if it makes you feel better.

This is just an Internet forum full of anonymous posters. It could
disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't lose a moment thinking about it.
The handful of folks who I respect use real names and email
addresses. It is easy enough to stay in touch. The whole forum, this
year and last, was a tempest in a very tiny teapot.

My point about "we all know where that went" was that at TB2K the
more the delete key was hit to save us from insult the more the
deletee submitted insults to compensate. It was a cycle that grew
more furious and finally took on a life of it's own, making the lives
of the sysops on old TB a miserable 24 hour job at the delete key.
And it all started with a few deletions.

Also, those kids who do use the gateway drugs have a MUCH higher
likelyhood of going on to harder stuff that those who do not ever
touch the gateway drugs at all. So your metaphor is indeed apt, once
a sysop hits delete to protect us from ourselves, they have a MUCH
higher chance of going on to the "harder stuff" than those who leave
the delete key alone.

"My point about "we all know where that went" was that at TB2K the
more the delete key was hit to save us from
insult the more the deletee submitted insults to compensate. It
was a cycle that grew more furious and finally took
on a life of it's own, making the lives of the sysops on old TB a
miserable 24 hour job at the delete key."

That's a good observation Uncle, except that OTFR has already stated
before that s/he was not going to repeat those same mistakes. I think
it was at the begining, discussing censoship with Dr. Schenker.
There's also the fact that what was deleted and the subject of
controversy here were not flaming posts.

I suppose it might be relevant to mention that OTFR deleted a nearly
identical post listing Diane's new web site several weeks ago for the
exact same reasons. I haven't found the link where OTFR explained it,
but this is certainly not the first time this happened. It appears
that nobody noticed it back then.

This doesn't necessarily make the current actions any more right or
wrong, but I felt that it was an important point to note, since many
seem to be under the impression that this is a new development.

And it depends on what you regard as flaming. If you see it as pure
insult that is one thing, but does flaming include Retard questioning
the validity of cap's post? That may or may not be seen as flaming,
but deleting it does not fit the ground rules as I understood them.

And the link to Di's forum may seen as an invite to mischief, or not,
depending on how you think. Again, I do not see how deleting it
because of what some folks might do adheres to the premise of free
expression. In fact, deleting the link to Di's forum because of what
some folks might do smacks of thought-policing in it's rawest form,
which hardly qualifys as uncensored, do you think?

One thing that Diane showed us during her term as a moderator at
TB2K, was that she knew how to use the delete keys. She wouldn't
hesitate to delete any posts on her new forum if she didn't want them
to be there, whether spam, DOS, or just someone she didn't want to
hear from. Thought Police... maybe you're on to something. :)

"you said: The handful of folks who I respect use real names and
email addresses."

Riddle me this, batman: are you saying that you would not respect
anyone who does not use a real name? That says something very
interesting about you, but I will leave it to you to figure out.

I do not use a real name because MY IDENTITY WAS STOLEN LAST YEAR AND
IT TOOK MONTHS TO CLEAR MY NAME AFTER THE CLOWN HAD RANG UP CHARGES
OF OVER $40,000(none of which I had to pay, thankfully).

So, by all means, continue your smugness about who is to be respected
by you. I respect people who present good posts which show critical
thinking and an attempt at lack of bias. I care not a wit for a real
name-it does not matter. I wonder why it matter so much to you.

I want to like you, I really do. I would like to like everybody. But
you do not make it easy, Ken, with your smugness. I know it matters
not one bit to you that I like or dislike you. Obviuosly we will
never be friends because I am "hiding behind a mask".

Unk:

you said:

"So your metaphor is indeed apt, once a sysop hits delete to protect
us from ourselves, they have a MUCH higher chance of going on to the
"harder stuff" than those who leave the delete key alone."

Excellant point. and well taken. I used my metaphor to contest
Flint's point, which appears to be that otbfr will absolutely,
positively, continue to go heavy on the delete key. I do not believe
this will happen.

More indirectly, remember Watergate? What brought Nixon down wasn't
what he did there. If he'd gone public the day he found out about it
(assuming he wasn't in on the planning. There's some evidence he at
least knew in advance), it would have been forgotten in a week. Even
if he WAS in on it in advance, it would have been no big deal to
exercise the political expedience of firing everyone else involved
and expressing horror and regret at the misguided zeal of his
underlings.

Instead, he refused to admit knowledge or involvement, and
orchestrated a continuing coverup. He was eventually impeached for
his refusal to admit error and for his denial of guilt, NOT for the
breakin itself.

The fuel supporting this current controversy, similarly, is NOT the
act of censorship, itself fairly minor. I think everyone here
(including Ken and me) would have been perfectly happen with a simple
"oops, sorry, got carried away, won't happen again" response from the
moderator.

Instead, the fuel is the attitude of "I own the keys, I can do
whatever I want, I'll censor whatever I damn well feel like,
criticism of my behavior serves no purpose being discussed here, and
those who don't like the threat of capricious censorship are assholes
who can either bend over or leave."

While I grant that minor transgressions don't always metastasize,
this attitude bodes ill. It's the same attitude the old TB2K forum
moderators expressed, an extremely defensive reaction with overtones
of paranoia. Inadvertently, our moderator has shifted the issue from
the material that disappeared to the character of the censor. An
incompetent moderator is tolerable, since the job is hard. A
*corrupt* moderator is not tolerable. And we all know what power
does...

>> Ken and Flint are right. As I understood the ground rules we would
tolerate things we didn't like in order to have the ability to say
things that others wouldn't like. <<

To the extent there is a "we" that are responsible for this forum, we
have followed those rules.

But there is a responsibility to this forum that is placed in the
hands of someone other than "us". It is performed either well or ill
by that person. We may criticize that person. No one is being banned
for criticizing OTFR, as some were banned from TB2K for criticism.

At this point these criticisms have been well-aired. No one is going
to mistake Flint's or Ken's position by now. Nor OTFR's. Communication
is no longer the issue.

Flint:

That is why I asked you what positive outcome he was looking for by
continuing the discussion. I have not yet discovered an answer to my
question. If you have posted one, it has eluded me - there are so many
threads devoted to this issue now.

My purpose in asking is not argumentative. I'm not looking to gain
some point by which to get the upper hand and prove you are in the
wrong. You could not possibly give a wrong answer to a question about
your wants or needs.

My only purpose is to drive this to some resolution. If the only thing
that will satisfy you is for OTFR to admit wrongdoing and give us and
you a suitable apology, you had best grasp that fact now, figure out
your best option for getting such an admission, and discover quickly
if such an outcome is possible. Then you can move on to the next phase
of whatever you need to do.

As far as I can see your best choices, if you fail to attain your
primary end, are: reconcile yourself, or to seek out or start a new
forum, or simply to leave. If you succeed in your primary goal, of
course, there is nothing further to seek.

Would you please stop arguing long enough to clarify your goal?
There is nothing that requires you to think along the lines I am
suggesting. You could, presumably, end your days still arguing your
point with OTFR. But don't you think it would help us all immensely if
you looked ahead to identify some end that within your reach?

Flint, in this last post you make all good observations, IMO. But I
think you're stretching things a wee bit too far by using Nixon as an
analogy for OTFR's character. A closer to home analogy might be better
to make your point, IMO.

I percieve OTFR very differently. First, OTFR hasn't demonstrated
having an ego the size of a tipical power hungry personality. IMO,
such a person not only would not choose to remain anonymous, but would
post their strong opinions under their admin name also. Something that
the moderators on the old forum did, interestingly.

Second, admitting errors in the way you suggest IMO is not always
warranted. In a public forum such as this, a moderator would need to
demonstrate an open mindedness, flexible and tolerant character and
good judgement, but at the same time retain enough authority to be
effective. Tough position to be in, IMO. Saying "oops, sorry, got
carried
away, won't happen again", or anything along those lines, would
definitely show weakness of character. I'd be worried if a moderator,
or a president especially, would say something like that.

Ummm, maybe OTFR learned a Very important lesson about keeping one's
mouth shut at TB? Knowing someone's predjudices and biases are VERY
important. We need to know if we are to understand OTFR's current
actions.

>> Inadvertently, our moderator has shifted the issue from the
material that disappeared to the character of the censor. <<

You expect us to believe that OTFR would willingly make their
character a target of public discussion, in preference to their public
actions? Yeah. Pardon my skepticism.

Whether or not you qualify this statement with the word
"inadvertently", OTFR never "shifted the issue" to character. OTFR's
critics and defenders did.

>> An incompetent moderator is tolerable, since the job is hard. A
*corrupt* moderator is not tolerable. And we all know what power
does... <<

This jab very consciously implies that OTFR is corrupt, without openly
saying so. If the accusation were open, evidence would be demanded,
which would be very inconvenient to provide, since there is none. By
leaving the accusation implied, you may deny it was intended. I
believe the word for this sort of thing is underhanded.

Flint, for someone who insists that character is on your side, this
speaks damn poorly for yours.

Perhaps the process is the goal. In this discussion, we are testing
the freedom of this forum. In reading the response of the sysop, we
are plumbing the depth of his/her character. For better or worse, I
know much more about our sysop than I did a week ago.

If you are tired of this, Brian, move on. I imagine this whole issue
will blow over. Ironically, your compulsion to "help" only lengthens
the debate. Let Flint worry about his "progress" toward his "goal."
Why is it your problem?

Being a Mutha "fan" I miss reading her humor. I hav not seen any posts
from her in some time (she SAID she would be lurking) Anyway, I kept a
short list of post on the censorship issue, and one of them may be the
thread you are looking for.

1. Post specific guidelines as to exactly what types of posts
will be deleted. I realize there are some guidelines posted, but they
are vague.

2. If a post and/or thread must be deleted, a notice should
always be placed there informing readers that the moderator deleted
it. Nothing should ever
be deleted without such notice.

The thing that bothered me the most about the TB2000 deletions
was the way most of them were done without any type of notice. Several
times I
watched it as it was happening. In many cases, the "sysops" even
denied doing it.

Despite my efforts, we are not communicating. Forgive me if I
conclude that you don't *want* to be communicated with.

As I said, I believe OTFR shifted the issue inadvertently. This is
very different from "willingly". Both the critics and defenders are
reacting both to what OTFR did, and moreso her subsequent efforts to
weasel out of the indefensible. She flat refuses to accept that
results differ from intent, just like someone you trip falls down
even if you didn't mean it. But just because she didn't INTEND to
make this the issue is not the point.

Hey, if you catch your kid with his hand in the cookie jar, and your
kid starts saying things like "I was NOT taking cookies", and "I can
steal cookies if I *feel* like it", and "You don't know what you're
talking about", how do you react? Would your kid be in trouble for
taking cookies, or for defiance rather than contrition in the face of
error?

And if you took exception to such defiance, would you seriously argue
that the *kid* is "not responsible" for making that the issue? Give
us a break! OTFR's responses were the very essence of asking for
trouble.

As for your foray into the intricacies of locution, that's hardly
necessary. But for your sake, I'll repeat with different words.
Capricious censorship exercised on a forum explicitly set up to
*avoid* censorship is corrupt. Arguing that "insensitivity" is
sufficient grounds for censorship on a notoriously acrimonious and
skeptical uncensored forum, and digging in her heels when challenged,
is corrupt.

This forum was founded, and exists, for its very lack of censorship.
With the (admittedly very narrow) confines of this forum, subverting
the raison d'etre of the forum, especially for trivial reasons, is a
high crime. Kind of like, within a marriage, violating your vows on
the grounds that you didn't want to hurt your secretary's feelings by
saying no. Your determination not to see this astounds me. What did
you *think* the issue is here?

On another track altogether, this debate appears to me (no more than
a swag, though) as being sexually dichotomous. Those who are
concerned about undermining the foundation of the forum seem to be
mostly male, and those who support the notion that "sensitivity" is
sufficient grounds for censorship tend to be female. You are the most
obvious exception. Maybe your defense of censorship has a different
basis? Just curious.

With respect to the girl, I agree that boorish comments were uncalled
for. However, the essay of the drunk is read in the tavern, while the
words of kings...

In other words, this forum isn't a very good place to say *anything*
you'd prefer not to be doubted, mocked or attacked. The way I see it,
the best response would be a very sharp posted criticism of the boor.
It's a shame that to protect my privileges I must perforce defend the
privileges of jerks. But you can't have your cake and eat it too,
sadly.

As for Diane, I'm not sure I follow you. Posting a link to a public
forum is about the least censorable think I can imagine. If someone
performs vandalism (how?), the responsibility lies with the vandal.
You might as well argue that the workman who laid the asphalt is
responsible for the traffic deaths.

As for letting the past go, this depends on where you sit. Let's say
one of us just punched the other in the face and then said "time to
let go of the past now". Somehow, I think the puncher would be *much*
more receptive to this notion than the punchee, don't you?

In any case, the deletion of this link shows that I'm not the only
one who didn't let go of the past...

I think that everyone would agree that the response was boorish to say
the least(but that's another topic).When I made the post I did not
expect to be"doubted, mocked or attacked" but that was ok, as I am
fairly assured that most know my modus operandi and would discard the
rants of a retard quickly,though my tender psyche can endure
cataclysmic and trivial nuicances.

I have no qualms giving up my exposure to doubt,mockery or attack for
the greater good of the forum but at the same time what is soooooo
wrong with reserving a minute amount of bandwidth for a little girl?
Retard was free to question me all day long in any way he saw fit,just
on another thread.If you read the post,it said "for those of you who
are inclined", was I running it down anyones throat? Was retard forced
to litter the thread because he had no other outlet? Was retard really
deprived of his freedom of speech?

As far as the Diane thread,I will give far more latitude to your
argument and I think,though cannot confirm,that OTFR may have a
different way of looking at it in the hindsight of it all.

There are allways different ways of looking at the same thing,depending
on,the angle from where you stand and your distance to the object.Is it
possible that both viewpoints hold equal merit and that neither is 100%
absolute.

OTFR is not a robot to be programmed with your nor anyonelse's set of
commands,OTFR is a human being,capable of the very worst,the very
mediocre or the most exemplary achievements a human can endeavor.

Should you take All the factors into consideration when laying
judgement on someone OR just the purely analytical,logically driven
factors that you deem to be the touchstone of truth.

First of all, I must confess that I'm spending WAY too much
time on this topic for someone who doesn't consider this issue one of
much import. I'm curious about a few things, however.

At first, you stated that Old Regular was catering to old buddies and
that the old-buddy network was the only group defending Old Regular's
position. More recently, you've modified your opinion to state that
the only group defending Old Regular's position is female with one
exception. Z is male, as well as capnfun, [assuming that when Z
talked about his wife not cooking and capnfun's loss of his
girlfriend are indicators.] I haven't REALLY done a count
on this one, but it seems that you, Ken, and Buddy are in agreement,
and Brian, Z, and capnfun are in agreement on the other side.
Oops...almost forgot about Ra/Sifting.

On the female side, Pam objected to the censorship, Gilda has been
silent, [although I feel confident she'd object], and Consumer and I
have stated we don't think it's a big deal. I really don't know the
gender of the other posters that participated in this debate, and I
didn't leave anyone out by design.

I can understand Old Regular's concerns about a link to Diane's forum
being presented here. Remember when Andy Ray posted instructions on
how to disable a forum on Debunkers? [Perhaps you don't. You never
spent any time there, but *I* remember.] The whole forum was
condemned for the deeds of one poster. Did *I* think it necessary to
disable the link? Of course not. I'd already seen Diane's forum
listed on LUSENET. The same holds true of the picture link. I'd
already seen the pictures. Did I question the intent of the poster?
You betcha. Is this a female trait? I dunno.

So we have this thread and some posts made by Retard on a thread
started by Capnfun. There's also an accusation made by Laura that a
thread in response to Lars was deleted. I haven't read anything by
Manny complaining that HIS posts ended up at the Deleted forum, but
why not include him as well?

I'm on my second major relationship IRL, Flint. I can tell ya that
for the first year or so in this second one I jumped on ANY
activity that reminded me of my first relationship. One day my SO
simply sat me down and said, "I am NOT your ex-husband."
There's a tendency for parents to see similar tendencies in their
children as well. How many parents have said, "You're following in
your older sibling's path"? The similarities are noticed, but the
differences are NOT.

I agree that just about *anything* retard did would have been better
than what he did do. And I don't enjoy defending jerks either. But
surely you know how it is. They came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew,
so I didn't say anything... *Someone* needs to say something in the
defense of jerks when the alternative is worse. Lousy choice, I know.

At first, you stated that Old Regular was
catering to old buddies and that the old-buddy network was the only
group defending Old Regular's position. More recently, you've modified
your opinion to state that the only group defending Old Regular's
position is female with one exception. Z is male, as well as capnfun,
[assuming that when Z talked about his wife not cooking and capnfun's
loss of his girlfriend are indicators.] I haven't REALLY done a count
on this one, but it seems that you, Ken, and Buddy are in agreement,
and Brian, Z, and capnfun are in agreement on the other side.
Oops...almost forgot about Ra/Sifting.

The font color reflects one that is; well you get it. Why would I lie
about being male. You don't believe Cap and Brian are male.

I just think that the whole thing is somewhat stupid [we agree on
that]. I was in another country when the whole thing started. I an
just getting up to speed.

I have posted at Diane's site. It is an interesting subject. I don't
see much activity there, but it will increase. I don't agree with many
of her posts; but then this is an area where I have "mucho" technical
expertise and practical experience. Yet, I am civil and can agree to
disagree.

By-the-way, my wife [the woman in the family] and I will celebrate
number 35 in a few weeks. Wouldn't that freak-out the
family-is-destroyed folks on ezboard. Unfortunately, I will be out of
the country at that time. I hope to be home for # 36.

OTFR, what door from Hell did I open from one miserable post? You
count three protests and think you are "out". You gotta get thicker
skin, my friend. You have done a Great Job! Just because I question
or disagree, doesn't mean you have failed, it means you have
succeeded, in thought provocation. imho, maybe sometimes, the things
we do, have a ripple effect, beyond our immediate scope. Man! you are
"a'rippling".

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
-- Pastor Martin Niemvller

>> Despite my efforts, we are not communicating. Forgive me if
I conclude that you don't *want* to be communicated with. <<

This seems to be the conclusion you want to draw, with forgiveness or
without. It is no doubt easier to misunderstand my motives than to
understand how your efforts could not avail.

>> As I said, I believe OTFR shifted the issue inadvertently. This is
very different from "willingly". Both the critics and defenders are
reacting both to what OTFR did, and moreso her subsequent efforts to
weasel out of the indefensible. <<

I can see you identify OTFR as the ultimate cause, rather than
the proximate cause of this shift in the debate. I have a
pretty hard time buying that. By identifying OTFR as the ultimate
cause, you are essentially saying that "OTFR made us do it, we had no
choice." Some people think like that. I don't. Maybe you do. Or
maybe, once again, you are misunderstood. I'd make a terrible
bartender.

>> She flat refuses to accept that results differ from intent, just
like someone you trip falls down even if you didn't mean it. But just
because she didn't INTEND to make this the issue is not the point. <<

Your analogy falls down, too. The character issue was willingly
introduced into the debate by whoever spoke of it first. To speak or
not to speak was a choice. To fall when tripped is not a choice. OTFR
did not compel the issue into the debate, OTFR provided the occassion
for it and her critics rose to meet the occassion.

Of course, now that the issue has been raised, it is here. The only
reason to linger on how it was introduced is because of your
insisting that the responsibility for introducing it could be laid at
OTFR's feet. It smacks of a need to blame everything on OTFR. That
strikes me as petty and needless.

>> Hey, if you catch your kid with his hand in the cookie jar, and
your kid starts saying things like "I was NOT taking cookies", and "I
can steal cookies if I *feel* like it", and "You don't know what
you're talking about", how do you react? Would your kid be in trouble
for taking cookies, or for defiance rather than contrition in the face
of error? <<

Again, you provide a telling choice of analogy. It assumes an
inequality of authority between the caught and the catcher: a kid and
a parent, and it assigns the greater authority to "you" as the parent.
Replay this analogy exactly replacing "kid" with "dad" in every
instance and it assumes a very different aspect. Replace "dad" with
"brother" and it changes aspect again.

>> And if you took exception to such defiance, would you seriously
argue that the *kid* is "not responsible" for making that the issue?
Give us a break! OTFR's responses were the very essence of asking for
trouble. <<

Defiance *of authority* is what you are limning for us in your story
here. But you've got the source of authority all cock-eyed. OTFR is
the final authority in this forum. As an adult, OTFR is your presumed
equal in terms of understanding and accepting responsibility. As
moderator, OTFR has an identifiable authority and responsibility for
this forum that exceeds yours. Get used to it.

The only possible greater authority you could claim that would have
any force in this situation is moral authority. You obviously feel
your moral authority is enormous in this case. I believe you
overestimate it.

In fact, to the extent that you have so obviously assumed this
mantle for yourself, upon your own unshakable belief in your own
superior moral position, it impairs and undermines the very moral
authority you seek to wield. The fact that you use phrases like "her
subsequent efforts to weasel out of the indefensible" shows that you
think your own position is as unassailable as you believe OTFR's is
indefensible. Moral authority that you give to yourself fits ill. I
believe the word for that is arrogant.

You are so unconcious of the effect of your arrogance that when OTFR
actually described you as pompous, you thought the rest of us would be
shocked (!) SHOCKED (!) at such language used about you. It isn't just
your vocabulary, Flint. It's what you say and how you act. It is woven
deep into you. I know, because we are rather alike in that respect. I
was lucky enought to marry a determined woman who has slowly wrung
some of it out of me.

>> Capricious censorship exercised on a forum explicitly set up to
*avoid* censorship is corrupt. <<

My understanding of the word "corrupt" is that it entails a loss of
moral integrity. No doubt you would agree with that interpretation,
based on your usage. You are clearly arguing that OTFR's moderation is
corrupt because it OTFR's actions were capricious. This is simply an
assertion about your judgement, not a fact about OTFR's actions or
motives. You appear to believe that your judgement is sufficient
evidence.

>> Arguing that "insensitivity" is sufficient grounds for censorship
on a notoriously acrimonious and skeptical uncensored forum, and
digging in her heels when challenged, is corrupt. <<

All you are saying here is that your judgement does not coincide with
OTFR's and that neither of you accepts the judgment of the other. This
is an impasse. The only reason you cannot accept this is your
assumption of the superior moral stance. This is your key blind spot.

>> This forum was founded, and exists, for its very lack of
censorship. With the (admittedly very narrow) confines of this forum,
subverting the raison d'etre of the forum, especially for trivial
reasons, is a high crime. <<

This is simply high rhetoric. Assertions. Characterizations.
Judgments. All delivered with superb self-assurance of the rightness
of your cause. You tend to overlook who founded the forum and does all
the real work of maintaining it: OTFR.

>> Kind of like, within a marriage, violating your vows on the grounds
that you didn't want to hurt your secretary's feelings by saying no.
<<

Again, your analogy fails. The essence of argument by analogy is to
analogize to something that is clearly similar. The more similar the
analog to the object analogized, the stronger the argument. Marriage
vows? Adultery? You expect me to find a high degree of commonality
between my relationship to my wife and my relationship to OTFR? You
must be joking!

>> Your determination not to see this astounds me. <<

Which is kind of sad, really. The only possible reason for not
cottoning onto your view of this forum is that I am determined
to reject it. I have set my jaw against the Lord. My!

>> What did you *think* the issue is here? <<

Certainly not the moral turpitude of OTFR, who strikes me as a fairly
reasonable, decent, dedicated and balanced person. I used to think the
same of you.

As for the issue of censorship in the forum, for me the issue is not
one of God-given rights violated or sacred duties corrupted, but
simply a discussion of the relative desirability of various grounds
for censorship. I accept some minor degree of censorship. You seem not
to.

>> On another track altogether, this debate appears to me [...] as
being sexually dichotomous. Those who are concerned about undermining
the foundation of the forum seem to be mostly male, and those who
support the notion that "sensitivity" is sufficient grounds for
censorship tend to be female. You are the most obvious exception.
Maybe your defense of censorship has a different basis? Just curious.
<<

Different basis than what? Being female? Well, it could hardly have
that basis, could it? So, my answer is a perplexed: yes. I am a
man.

Of COURSE I believe you're male, but I was talking to Flint, who
apparently hadn't noticed the posts you'd provided in reference to
your wife.

Capn: I'm sorry. I knew you lost a significant other, but I didn't
remember it was your wife.

Gender identity is hard when folks don't post using names reflective
of one gender or another. I thought Big Dog and 'a' were female for
quite a while, and thought OG was male. Some 6 months after I
chatted with Y2kpro, I saw a post stating, "You know Y2kpro is
female, don't you?" I thought, "Somebody'd better tell his wife and
kids about this."

Now, back to earth, please. After the casuistry is swept away, I hear
the following dialogue:

Q: Was this set up to be an uncensored forum?

Flint: Uh, doesn't it say that in the title? Wasn't that the reason
the forum was created in the first place? Hasn't this been attested
to repeatedly by happy customers? Can we say "prima facie", boys and
girls?

I THINK I understand this, but at least dinner's out of the
way so I don't have to worry about burning anything in a response.

When TB2000 moved, it became apparent that some folks were banned
from the new forum before even posting. Old Regular quickly came up
with a new forum name that included "Uncensored." Censorship for
some means that particular people are SILENCED. Uncensored
for others means that ANYTHING GOES HERE.

*I* wasn't looking for an "anything goes" forum, but I WAS looking
for a forum where folks weren't silenced before they even spoke.
Flint would like to see pornography displayed on the forum. [You've
mentioned this several times, Flint.] I've played around with
various scenarios of discussions since Flint made mention of this.
The discussions of a "pencil-thin" penis or "gerbils" pale in
comparison to the discussions I could conjure in my mind. I suspect
Flint wanted to see pictures, but did he REALLY want to
DISCUSS those pictures? Is this a pictorial forum, or a
discussion forum?

If my junk mail is any indication, if I wanted to look at pornography
I could choose among half the total sites and seems like 90% of the
bandwidth of the internet!

I said I wouldn't oppose pornography, but this is principle more than
preference -- I'd prefer not to waste time debating whether a
particular graphic is pornographic or not. And I think such
discussions would provide thin and temporary entertainment for most
of us. As many have made abundantly clear, once you start making
judgment calls about content, you can't stop. So if it were up to me,
I'd have to rely on our small population doing sufficient self-
policing. Otherwise, we'd all apply the "E. H. Porter" test and
decide our time wasn't worth spending here.

Yes, I favor an "anything goes" forum for that reason (I also
included sales pitches, stolen handles, hate speech, etc. as
permissable. Even directions for making bombs out of paper towel
rolls). After all, y2k is over. We either find a focus that keeps our
attention or we fade into history. While I don't much care what that
focus is, of course if it fails my "Porter test" why should I hang
around? Why should anyone?

So at some level, the censorship debate here is as much an effort to
flog a flagging enthusiasm as it is a genuine concern. My gosh, if it
weren't for this forum, whatever would I do with my *time*? Anything
to feed the old addiction, know what I mean?

No, I would not delete troll posts - I usually find them most
enjoyable - but I tend to draw the line when it appears to be a
personal attack against another individual who has requested not to
have any association with this forum. I would like to know WHY
someone thought this link belongs here, not WHO posted it. (I try to
focus on motives - too many detective novels.)

I just feel that, looking at the censorship on the old forum, that
this doesn't come close to the same level - yet. Time will tell.

Just out of curiousity, if anyone here were to start their own forum
and requested not to be associated with this forum, or the original
Timebomb site (as DJS appears to have done), how would they react.
We already have heard that Lady Logic, or more likely someone using
here handle, has posted on Diane's site. I agree with what Anita
said, about Andy Ray's post on Debunker, and how that became a focal
point on the TBY2K site.

Why do we need to focus on one topic? Personally, I've felt as
comfortable discussing green jello as I have abortion as I have Y2k
aftermath on this forum. These topics didn't move YOU,
obviously, but neither did the date of earth-bound mollusks move
ME.

I didn't intend to portray you as a lecher by including your
references to pornography. My intent leaned more toward folks
experiencing the same mental thoughts as I when considering the
discussion. Who ARE those folks who send us the links to
the "hot 18-year-old" sites?

The forum will die when the participants move on. I telecommuted for
3 years plus, so I'm accustomed to sitting at a computer all day
long. I don't log onto the internet when I'm working, and all day on
a computer plus all evening on a computer would make for a VERY
dull life, so once I become gainfully employed, I'll only have
weekends to post. I figure that will break the addiction of which
you speak.

>> Now, back to earth, please. After the casuistry is swept away, I
hear the following dialogue: <<

I'll take responsibility for half of that casuistry, if you own up to
the other half. As for the dialogue you hear...OK, sure, you get all
the good lines and I get to play the boob... but on the whole I found
it one hell of a lot more refreshing than the high moral dudgeon
you've been peddling for the last couple of days. Welcome back to
reality, Flint. Did you have a nice flight?

After looking at those links I posted above, I found something very
interesting! One of them is the one that Diane claimed I "impersonated
a sysop", but the dates were out of order (it went from June 6 to June
8, then back to June 6) I told Diane she had screwed up big-time in
trying to "frame" me (It was just to get me BTW)